Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Recently did a whole bunch of reading on "global warming" and came to this conclusion: The term "Carbon Footprint" is meaningless and based on so much hot air (forgive the pun) , CO2 is only responsible for a fraction of global warmign gases, the big culprit is water vapor...so what's your water vapor footprint?
The planet is getting warmer, 6/10 a degree C per century. I think I'll be keeping my shirt on in December for the next 5 or 6 hundred years.

JDJarvis wrote:Recently did a whole bunch of reading on "global warming" and came to this conclusion: The term "Carbon Footprint" is meaningless and based on so much hot air (forgive the pun) , CO2 is only responsible for a fraction of global warmign gases, the big culprit is water vapor...so what's your water vapor footprint?
The planet is getting warmer, 6/10 a degree C per century. I think I'll be keeping my shirt on in December for the next 5 or 6 hundred years.

OMGWTFROFLBBQ!!! Someone actually applying basic science in a rational manner!

Water vapor (and more broadly waste heat in energy transfers) is something that warrants careful attention. One cannot help but remark the problems posed by such practices as transporting electricity across great distances by resistant wire or using nuclear reactors to turn steam turbines.

Look at how long it took automotive design to recover braking energy. We are yet at the coltish stage of engineering elegance, and every economic or political inducement yields startling dividends.

Perhaps the warming trend has peaked and begun a decline. The recent hysteria (for I cannot otherwise characterize the phenomenon) may yet have a "silver lining" in bringing attention to unrealized potentials.

There is a gulf between the mechanic and the accountant. The former usually may as well be talking to a brick wall when trying to explain to the latter the advantages of an untried plan. Any amount of "brass tacks" gets trumped by the plea that "we have always formerly done it so."

That has been the ruin of the U.S. automotive industry, and a telling factor in the wartime fortunes of great powers.

This is a period of great fecundity in research, and the power furthest ahead in the most rewarding fields is likely to have a commanding position in coming decades. The international status quo may well get remarkably shaken.

An electric vehicle may be only in a parochial, "not in my back yard," sense a bargain. What are the global costs of producing the power cells and delivering the current?

In general, more efficient systems in the long run call for more capital investment up front. It's easier (e.g.) to keep launching rockets on a "pay by launch" plan than to ask for what it would take to build the infrastructure for a system that would in the long run cost less per ton of payload.

Even politicians gifted with foresight must answer to an electorate with an increasingly attenuated attention span.

"Global Cooling" has reared it's ugly head.

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/02/ ... -alert.php

The ice is back, most snow cover in 40 years, tmperatures the past 6 weeks lowest against the average for the past century.

Bl0gegrs and Media wonks who are totally incapable of communicating any scientific discussion in an accurate manner are blatting on about "global cooling".

One year of data doesn't mean much; have this happen for more then half the winters over the next decade and I'll be in there encouraging folks to increase their carbon footprint so we can turn back the ice .

I think i'll get new cross-country ski's for next winter and make sure my swim trunks are in good shape for the summer.

The only way you could scientifically verify global warming would be to watch it happening under controlled conditions. Since most people would like to avoid that, I think we should persuade our governments to spend some of the money they presently use on defence (and I include my own, unless anyone can give me a justifiable reason why the UK should have the second-most-expensive military of the 22nd Century) to actually defending us against possible threats.

One of the possible threats is climate change. You might not believe it's going to happen, which is fine. Personally I don't believe North Korea will attack the UK, but we're spending money defending ourselves against the remote possibility, because that's what defence is for. Contingencies.

The fact that it doesn't involve soldiers or tanks doesn't mean it isn't a matter of national security.

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:The only way you could scientifically verify global warming would be to watch it happening under controlled conditions. Since most people would like to avoid that, I think we should persuade our governments to spend some of the money they presently use on defence (and I include my own, unless anyone can give me a justifiable reason why the UK should have the second-most-expensive military of the 22nd Century) to actually defending us against possible threats.

One of the possible threats is climate change. You might not believe it's going to happen, which is fine. Personally I don't believe North Korea will attack the UK, but we're spending money defending ourselves against the remote possibility, because that's what defence is for. Contingencies.

The fact that it doesn't involve soldiers or tanks doesn't mean it isn't a matter of national security.

This is where the Koreans are smarter than your government. Their plan all along was to take out Britian with climatological changes and not conventional weaponry.

stranger wrote:This is where the Koreans are smarter than your government. Their plan all along was to take out Britian with climatological changes and not conventional weaponry.

So their signature on the Kyoto treaty was a trick?

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:The only way you could scientifically verify global warming would be to watch it happening under controlled conditions. Since most people would like to avoid that, I think we should persuade our governments to spend some of the money they presently use on defence (and I include my own, unless anyone can give me a justifiable reason why the UK should have the second-most-expensive military of the 22nd Century) to actually defending us against possible threats.

I'm hoping you meant the 21st century.

Two things:

1. As suggested long ago by Michael Crichton, any such testing would have to be done by an independent body with no stake in the game. No grants at stake, no academic reputations to protect, and no bosses to please.

2. I'm not sure how results in a controlled environment could translate into results in such a large environment such as our weather system and atmosphere. Granted, it could probably be done, but I'm not seeing it.

One of the possible threats is climate change. You might not believe it's going to happen, which is fine.

You know, that's not even the largest point of discussion. I think we all know climate change is an inevitability. The question has always been: a) are radical changes in progress and in danger of causing us massive harm, and b) are we the cause of it? B is rapidly getting ruled at as cooler heads prevail. The jury is still out on A.

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:

stranger wrote:This is where the Koreans are smarter than your government. Their plan all along was to take out Britian with climatological changes and not conventional weaponry.

So their signature on the Kyoto treaty was a trick?

Japan was at the table playing nice when they backdoored the US. I would think Korea would have learned much from their neighbors.

SemajTheSilent wrote:

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:The only way you could scientifically verify global warming would be to watch it happening under controlled conditions. Since most people would like to avoid that, I think we should persuade our governments to spend some of the money they presently use on defence (and I include my own, unless anyone can give me a justifiable reason why the UK should have the second-most-expensive military of the 22nd Century) to actually defending us against possible threats.

I'm hoping you meant the 21st century.

Two things:

1. As suggested long ago by Michael Crichton, any such testing would have to be done by an independent body with no stake in the game. No grants at stake, no academic reputations to protect, and no bosses to please.

2. I'm not sure how results in a controlled environment could translate into results in such a large environment such as our weather system and atmosphere. Granted, it could probably be done, but I'm not seeing it.

Yeah, that's kind of my point, Semaj.

The only way to experimentally verify climate change is to watch it happening, and if we do that, we're fucked.

SemajTheSilent wrote:You know, that's not even the largest point of discussion. I think we all know climate change is an inevitability. The question has always been: a) are radical changes in progress and in danger of causing us massive harm, and b) are we the cause of it? B is rapidly getting ruled at as cooler heads prevail. The jury is still out on A.

Actually it doesn't matter a toss who's the cause of it, really.

If you don't believe radical climate changes are in progress, then you get the Ostrich Award for Head In The Sand. They've been in progress throughout recorded history. I mean, the climate just in Great Britain--a relatively mild-weathered place!--has varied between "warm enough to grow orange trees" (preserved eyewitness accounts from the dark ages) to "cold enough for whole crowds to ice skate on major rivers" (preserved eyewitness records from the Victorian era).

The questions as I see them are "How bad can it get", "What can we do to protect ourselves against it" and "How much does it cost to do that".

If we knew the answer to those questions, we'd have some basis for intelligent discussion. But we don't know.

So we the human race have to decide what to do in the face of a threat of unknown size. And that's what Kyoto was: the world community getting together, discussing it, and deciding. It's done.

Now we're in a position where 174 nations agree on something and 1 disagrees. In my opinion the science is intractable and the political discussion's over. The only question that remains is what the world community should do to enforce compliance.

Iraq, South Africa, and North Korea know what happens next: trade sanctions. The world community makes it more expensive not to comply than to comply. I wonder when we'll get to them.

SemajTheSilent wrote:

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:...unless anyone can give me a justifiable reason why the UK should have the second-most-expensive military of the 22nd Century

I'm hoping you meant the 21st century.

Three words: Daleks!

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:Yeah, that's kind of my point, Semaj.

The only way to experimentally verify climate change is to watch it happening, and if we do that, we're fucked.

But what's the point in throwing money at a situation that can't even be defined? You're still starting from the assumption that "global warming" is real and we're causing it? Spending out way into a peaceful mind won't solve anything and who knows if there's really something to solve?

Actually it doesn't matter a toss who's the cause of it, really.

Oh really? What if it turns out it's all natural and there's not a damn thing we can do about it? That question should be answered first.

If you don't believe radical climate changes are in progress, then you get the Ostrich Award for Head In The Sand. They've been in progress throughout recorded history. I mean, the climate just in Great Britain--a relatively mild-weathered place!--has varied between "warm enough to grow orange trees" (preserved eyewitness accounts from the dark ages) to "cold enough for whole crowds to ice skate on major rivers" (preserved eyewitness records from the Victorian era).

Fair enough, but... well, I've already said it.

The questions as I see them are "How bad can it get", "What can we do to protect ourselves against it" and "How much does it cost to do that".

If we knew the answer to those questions, we'd have some basis for intelligent discussion. But we don't know.

So we the human race have to decide what to do in the face of a threat of unknown size. And that's what Kyoto was: the world community getting together, discussing it, and deciding. It's done.

My understanding of Kyoto was that it was a treaty designed to cripple what's left of Western industry to offset a boogeyman. I also noticed that China, one of the signatories, promptly found ways around it.

Now we're in a position where 174 nations agree on something and 1 disagrees. In my opinion the science is intractable and the political discussion's over. The only question that remains is what the world community should do to enforce compliance.

Iraq, South Africa, and North Korea know what happens next: trade sanctions. The world community makes it more expensive not to comply than to comply. I wonder when we'll get to them.

We won't. It's not economically viable or desirable unless a shortrange political goal would be achieved.

There has been global warming: 6/10 of a degree C over 100 years.
Of which the human race maye be vaguely responsible for 8/10ths of 1%.

Seemingly the kyoto protocols has cost the world economy over $455,000,000,000.00 to possibly lower global temps by ... 5/1000ths of a degree celcius.

Seems to me tackling the changes would be the way to go instead of trying to stop a train by standing on the tracks and holding ones hand out.

SemajTheSilent wrote:But what's the point in throwing money at a situation that can't even be defined?

What's the purpose of building tanks and stealth fighters at the taxpayer's expense? Who do we expect to use them against, precisely, and when will they be deployed?

We don't know, of course; future military conflicts are one of those things we just can't define. Asking to define them before we spend the money leads to leaving the nation undefended.

When it's a matter of national security, you spend now and you'll find out whether you need what you've spent the money on later.

Follow my logic?

SemajTheSilent wrote: You're still starting from the assumption that "global warming" is real and we're causing it?

No, if you read closely, what I said was, "it doesn't matter a toss who's the cause of it." I think humans are undoubtedly having an effect, and global factors are undoubtedly having an effect, but which is more to blame than the other doesn't matter.

Imagine there's a six-mile-wide meteorite on a possible collision course with the earth. It might hit, and it might not.

Do we:

(a) Sit around arguing about whose fault it is and whether humans caused it?
(b) Demand precise, scientific proof that it'll hit before we take any action to divert it?
or
(c) Prepare to launch some kind of missile to break it up or divert it, even though it might not hit?

Arguing about whether humans are to blame for global warming is equivalent to answer "a". Surely we deal with the threat regardless of its source.

SemajTheSilent wrote:Oh really? What if it turns out it's all natural and there's not a damn thing we can do about it? That question should be answered first.

But the science is intractable. Therefore we cannot and will not prove, to the satisfaction of the global warming skeptics in denial, that it'll really happen. Going back to my meteorite example, demanding proof that the disaster really will happen before acting is equivalent to answer "b". We deal with the potential threat, even if it might not happen.

For the same reason, we have forces ready to deal with North Korea, even though that situation might not flare up. Because pro-actively preparing for major problems is an intelligent idea.

See?

SemajTheSilent wrote:My understanding of Kyoto was that it was a treaty designed to cripple what's left of Western industry to offset a boogeyman. I also noticed that China, one of the signatories, promptly found ways around it.

Yeah, this is a familiar tactic. When a minority doesn't like a majority decision, they often make imputations about the motives of the majority.

SemajTheSilent wrote:We won't. It's not economically viable or desirable unless a shortrange political goal would be achieved.

No, sure, the world community has to MAKE it economically desirable before the US will comply. That's abundantly clear.

My own thought is we should impose, for example, a punitive import duty on products sourced from countries that haven't ratified Kyoto. We should also donate funding to US political parties that support our goals, and we should begin to seize US citizens outside their country and detain them without charge or trial.

Since the US has been quite happy to impose those sanctions on maverick nations that fly in the face of world opinion before, that should be seen as quite reasonable over there.

Yeah, JDJarvis, in the years since ratification Kyoto's cost the world economy roughly three quarters of the US defence budget per annum.